Anne Ferris TD at Leinster House this evening.
“I feel bad having voted against my own party and the government on this but it’s an issue very close to my heart and I could not but have supported Clare Daly’s bill [allowing abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities].
“We are forcing people to go to England to have terminations of a much wanted and much loved baby. I think that is really, really wrong. That service should be available in this country.
I wanted to vote for the bill to go to the next stage, which is only committee stage so that the medical experts, the legal experts can come in and have a look at it and go through it line by line.
“If we were told after that definitively it is unconstitutional, then we wouldn’t have been able to vote for it. But I am not sure it is unconstitutional.”
Wicklow TD Anne Ferris after her expulsion from the Labour Party for opposing the party whip.
Earlier: Sent Away
(Leon Farrell/Photocall Ireland)
The Labour party is a disgrace
Plus a Sinn Fein no show. Spineless.
And oddly enough
The Labour Party should have abstained also
True. As others stated on the previous post, it’s a tricky area for SF and they may have abstained because of their current popularity.
remember the spineless ones so you can remember to take revenge at the polls
Can’t believe I am being nice about them but SF abstained as the need to first have a vote at their Ard Fheis with all it’s members before they can take a position
Pathetic excuse
Very poor form for SF not to have a position on foetal fatal pregnancies. Cynics will think it’s because SF know abortion is a touchstone issue and don’t want to adopt positions if at all possible, for fear of upsetting a sizeable chunk of the population (and Peadar Toibin).
Most FFers voted against.
Was surprised that only 20 voted for. I thought it would be far higher.
they could have allowed a free vote
I’m with clampers “pathetic excuse”
Poor form & gutless politics by SF – I like the idea that political parties defer to the wider party on decisions and policy as much as possible – be that through an Ard Fheis or whatever but this SF’s stance in this case smacks of being made with the political optics in mind and bugger the principle involved.
The inability to formulate a view without referring to an Ard Fheis first in the face of a looming vote hardly gives confidence that they’re ready to govern. If SF get into government, will all issues where they don’t have a settled policy, need to be referred to a SF Ard Fheis before a SF government would take a stance??? That SF seemingly don’t have the capacity to come to a view based on the views of the parliamentary party or some similar body makes them entirely unsuitable for government (unless they’re going to keep an Ard Fheis in permanent session…)
On a different question that might concern a greater liberalisation of abortion I might have some sympathy for such a stance, but in this instance where there is a clear case of human need and with an overwhelming consensus (80%+ in favour in recent polls I heard on the radio yesterday) supporting legislation, then it’s political cowardice pure and simple. Shame on SF, I would have expected better from them on an issue like this. When you make FF look like the more principled party, you know you’re in the corner of shame.
I agree, I don’t understand the opposition to termination in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities AT ALL. It doesn’t even come under abortion as far as I’m concerned. I’m disappointed with SF for abstaining or not allowing a free vote on this. If it was to maintain their popularity by steering clear of a hot topic then they’ve demonstrated that they’re just playing the game the same as the rest of the career politicians.
If their whole selling point is that they’re going to change politics to work for the people they made a big mistake here…nobody in their right mind can think that what is happening to these families is right.
Pathetic excuse echoed.
+1
Fair play Anne Ferris. With conviction and courage like that, there’s no place for you in the Labour Party.
But had no problem voting in favour of austerity policies that inflicted hardship on the rest of us… Same old crap from escapists a la Lucinda
Was she not expelled from the Labour Party?
Yeah they should have just gone whinging on the internet and never made any hard decisions ever.
The labour party. Can anyone tell me what they stand for
Going into labour apparently.
Haha very good
@joe …the problem with politics these days. The electorate give you dogs abuse for not doing something but don’t give you credit when you actually do something….what about the protection of life during pregnancy act in 2013?
Note: I am not Joan burton.
What about .what about the protection of life during pregnancy act in 2013?.
Am I missing something here. What was that about??
Or are you just trolling me first thing in the morning?
Odis or joe cool , which moniker is it?? Hamm anyway, I’m pro choice but I also realise that abortion is a sensitive issue still for a lot of the electorate, which isn’t just the broadsheet readership.
The act wasn’t perfect, possibly far from perfect I dunno but at least it wasn’t an honest attempt to address the yawning legislative gap from the X case as a result of FF ignorance. But sure let’s hammer the government for not going further.
Labour will campaign on the 8th removal in the election. That’s for defo
Steve on the Claire Byrne show on Monday night their poll indicated that 80% of people would support abortion in the case of FFA so maybe the general populous isn’t as sensitive as you think. Also if you have to start a post with i am pro-choice, generally you are not.
@ Steve To answer your question – Odis will do nicely for me. You may wish to address “Joe Cool” separately.
Sorry I can’t see the point you are making here. As you say, it“wasn’t an honest attempt to address the yawning legislative gap”
I couldn’t agree more. It certainly wasn’t an honest attempt to address anything at all. Just a load of legislative junk, designed to pacify popular protest, from the Sheriff of Ireland and his well paid m80’s.
What Odis said.
2013 was a waste of time and money and done nothing to address the problem. It purposefully avoided addressing the issue, but according to Enda, caused a lot of stress among his colleagues who then wouldn’t have the energy to tackle a referendum… yeah, Enda said that (pretty much anyway…. he said they were too exhausted or some other lame bullcrap.
2013 was a waste, a pointless waste addressing an issue on the fringes (that nearly all countries struggle with) of the more pressing problem.
…going into retirement…soon hopefully.
Joe, the labour party stands for the labour party.
Very good
Rats off a sinking ship. Any excuse will do.
I think the government was right to vote the proposed Bill down.
The advice (and it seems clear advice) from the nominally independent Attorney General was the proposed Bill wasn’t compatible with the Constitution. If Clare Daly introduces a new Bill today to allow capital punishment for cycle thieves, we might all support it but it, too, would clearly be contrary to the Constitution.
The solution in both cases, is to give the people the opportunity to change the Constitution in a referendum.
It is, but not an opportunity Enda proposed when he was stating his reasons for voting against the bill. Look, if he’d said, the AG says this is unconstitutional, We could vote for it and have it tested in the next stage but that’s delaying a very important issue so we’ve decided to hold a referendum to amend the 8th to allow abortion in the case of fatal abnormalities, I think people would have said fine. I think Clare Daly would have been quite pleased.
However, that’s not what he said. He said he got top secret advice from one person and that was going to be the end ot it.
The advice from the AG is almost (99.99% of the time) always confidential (or “top secret – burn after reading” if you want to be dramatic).
Personally agree we should get a referendum on the 8th, but on the basis of yesterday’s result (16% for the Bill out of 124 votes cast), there’s a weak case for calling that referendum.
Then why won’t they publish the attorney generals report?
Because then people could argue with the AG’s opinion – FG & Lab choose to hide behind the confidentiality precedent of the AGs views being restricted to cabinet rather than have a proper open debate on it’s the bill’s constitutionality. I call b*llsh&t on this blanket confidentially – it was used yesterday to restrict debate, nothing else.
There was a excellent interview with a Constitutional; Scholar (from NUIG if I recall correctly) on the newstalk yesterday evening who poured considerable quantities of cold water on the government’s stance on the issue. He did not believe that bill was clearly unconstitutional and in any case, the Dail can pass any bill it wants to unconstitutional or otherwise – it’s a matter for the (supreme) court to determine constitutionality not the flipping dail. He pointed out that unlike in some other countries there is no mechanism built into the constitution to allow for a review of new legislation to test it’s constitutionality other than perhaps the President referring the bill. Now obviously it would be a waste of time and resources to pass bills that are obviously unconstitutional but I didn’t get the impression from that interview that this bill was obviously unconstitutional at all.
Shame on the 104.
I can understand that it comes across as dramatic and maybe there is a bit of hyperbole there, but I think we have a right to see this advice.
They work for us. We pay all the TDs, we pay the AG, we should be able to assess the advice they get when making decisions of this magnitude.
There are people who have gone in for a scan this morning and have gotten the worst possible news and are right now wondering what they are going to do. Let’s spare a thought for them right now – this shuffling and buck passing and secrecy won’t help them and they aren’t even allowed to know why. But we can all be confident that their tax will be taken at source as always.
and who is this ONE person, whos secret recommendation has a serious impact on the lives of so many people? That doesn’t seem very democratic…
what do you mean ‘clear advice from the AG’? the advice wasn’t published. how do you know it was clear?
Look on the bright side. We have one honest politician who’s prepared to stand up for her principles.
Don’t just tell us, tell her.
anne.ferris@oir.ie (Work Email)
anneferris7@gmail.com (Personal Email)
Thanks very much, Spartacus, I’ve emailed her to thank her.
Done here too
Well you’ve also got Lucinda Creighton, Peter Mathews, Peadar Tóibín and those guys…
*ducks*
Why expel her at all? At the end of the day it was hardly like this bill was going anywhere. It was hardly make or break for the coalition.
Apologies …it was
Cowards, one and all. Lets wait til a better country does it then we can blame them if it doesnt work out, much like everything else we do.
There is no better country. It’s just the finks we elect.
1. She made a stand for what she believed in – chapeau!
2. Labour will be decimated in next election so she has increased her chances of re-election as an Indie
win, win for her.
I agree. She’ll certainly be getting my vote next time.
When politicians say abortion is a sensitive issue what they really mean to say is that the people who voted for them to lead are a facile bunch who’s own sensitivies make any proper decision making impossible for fear of losing their loyalties.
Or maybe they no longer know what the people who voted for them (or who might or would vote for them) actually think. Too long a time in the Dáil can give you a tin ear for the feelings of the electorate.